millercarbon I feel compelled to educate you on a couple of things after your baseless raving review of the Schumann Resonator post....
"Starting with one I added a couple at a time until now at 8 with 2 more on the way. Each one improved the same amount as the last. So much for the "law" of diminishing marginal returns. Some say they need to be 5ft off the floor. No idea where that comes from. Six of mine are about 5 ft up, but two are right on the floor and when turned off and on (I have them on a remote switch) it is easy to hear they all make the same difference."
If you have never heard of proper methods for evaluating products or anything new for that matter, it's time you learn a little about blind and double blind testing. By baseless I mean nothing in nature works as you claim and to hear the improvement of one little resonator up to 10 little resonators is impossible. Human perception does not work that way, never has and never will. Since you have so many of these little gadgets perhaps you could find a friend or two and set up a proper test environment per the following protocol. I suggest the double blind method just to keep your friends honest as well....
When undertaking a clinical trial, the two major models that one can use are the single blind and double blind trials. Selecting the right trial is important since it can affect the outcome of the trial or introduce errors. The ideal model should be selected based on the type of trial and other variables. For any clinical trial, there are usually two groups of people who are experimented on. Members of one group are given a placebo, and the members of another group are given the treatment that is being studied. This is so as to compare the effectiveness of the treatment to placebo. In a single blind study, the participants in the clinical trial do not know if they are receiving the placebo or the real treatment. This is done to reduce the risk of errors, since some participants might produce spurious results if they know that they are taking the placebo or medication. In this model, the experimenter monitoring the participants knows which individuals received the placebo and which ones got the treatment under examination. In a double-blind study, both the participants and the experimenters do not know which group got the placebo and which got the experimental treatment. This is considered to be the superior model of clinical research since it eliminates outcomes that are produced due to placebo effect, as well as observer bias by the experimenter. The fact that the experimenter does not know which group received the placebo or the experimental drug means that the risk of conscious and unconscious observer bias is reduced, making the study more accurate.
|
These posts can get a little off target sometimes but most of the time the tweaks large and small do have merit and are grounded in science or at least a physical relationship between what is perceived and what is real. Schumann resonators however are not one of them. First, Schumann resonance is an electromagnetic field not an acoustic signal. Second the amplitude of the field is on the order of 1 picotesla and can only be detected with highly sensitive antennas and instruments.
The magnetic coil used to detect Schumann resonance typically consists of tens to hundreds of thousands of turns of wire wound around a highly magnetic core. Further, 1 picotesla is many orders of magnitude smaller than the earths own magnetic field. All this is to say the idea of a Schumann resonator improving sound is pure nonsense. However It does beg the question as to what a person thinks is true versus what they want to think is true. What do you think millercarbon? Perhaps it is time to go back to the books. |
@millercarbon
It is clear you like to put yourself on a pedestal and pretend to be all knowing when it comes to hifi. With so many years invested doing that, you shouldn’t be surprised when somebody comes along and challenges you, it’s bound to happen. In that sense, you should pay attention to what thecarpathian, sokogear and others are saying. And... you must respond if you are to remain credible. Or you can bow out by saying you misjudged the reading comprehension of your audience. Since I believe I have relatively good reading comprehension and I understand acoustics and how discrete sources add, can you explain why you made the following comment?
"Starting with one I added a couple at a time until now at 8 with 2 more on the way. Each one improved the same amount as the last. So much for the "law" of diminishing marginal returns."
Also on a more fundamental level can you explain why adding a 7.83 Hz electromagnetic generator to your room improves the clarity of your system? Can you also address the odd and even harmonics that are generated? The 5th harmonic is at 39.15 Hz. Enquiring minds want to know...
|
to millercarbon and all the millercarbon minions - imagine how sweet your system would sound if you actually plug the thing in! The proper way to evaluate that is to wear a blindfold and put three receptacles on the wall, two fake and one real and feel around and plug into one then the other and repeat until you settle on a winner. Ooops, you wouldn't know if it was the Schumann resonator that enhanced the sound or the brand of receptacle. Oh well, you could at least write about it as if you knew what you were talking about. |
